international enrolment – Page 8 – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

INDIA OVERTAKING CHINA AS KEY STUDENT MARKET MAY BE A GAME CHANGER FOR LOWER RANKED UNIVERSITIES

A year ago seems an age away but in January 2020 I was speculating about how the surge of student mobility from India might change the UK higher education sector in terms of demographics and financial benefit. At that point I described the HESA data as ‘tantalising’ but with the 2019/20 enrollment data available by country and university it’s clear that things have moved quickly. And there may also be lessons for US universities to consider as they ponder their post-pandemic international recruitment strategies.

The top line numbers from HESA DATA show that the total number of Indian students enrolled in UK higher education grew by 27960 (101.7%) between 2018/19 and 2019/20 compared to a growth of 20,790 (17.2%) for Chinese students. For each country the growth in the number of undergraduates year on year was around 8,000 but India had an additional 19,000+ enrolled graduates year on year compared to around 12,000 for China. It is the first sign of a new order for markets of origin with India sending over 5,000 more first year students than China in 2019.

More importantly, the distribution of Indian students by type of institution has proved to be significantly different to that of Chinese students. One way to illustrate this is a comparison between the universities that saw the biggest year on year growth in each. It is striking that all of the universities with the greatest increase in the number of Chinese students are in the Russell Group but none of those with the most significant increases in Indian students are in the Group.

TABLE 1: Top Ten overall increases for Chinese and Indian Enrollments between 2018/19 and 2019/20

	Change in total enrolled Chinese student yoy from 2018/19 to 2019/20	Change in total enrolled Indian students yoy from 2018/19 to 2019/20
Edinburgh	1410	50
East London	-15	1710
Leeds	1235	45
Bedfordshire	30	1595
Southampton	1190	-10
Hertfordshire	-135	1575
Sheffield	1150	15
Northumbria	90	1510
UCL	1065	25
Kingston	160	1265
Manchester	885	75
Ulster	-15	1230
Birmingham	860	10
Central Lancashire	-105	1180
Newcastle	855	50
Middlesex	-110	915
Kings College	725	50
Greenwich	-185	840
Nottingham	725	30
Coventry	-85	810

Note: To maintain consistency private and specialist universities excluded from table. Of the private universities BPP registered a year on year growth of 1640 from India but a fall of 95 from China. The London based University of the Arts showed a year on year growth of 790 from China and an additional 70 from India.

Source: HESA

Digging deeper indicates that location is not the main driver of these vastly differentiated enrollment patterns. The situation for several cities with two main universities is shown below. Manchester Metropolitan shows relatively balanced numbers but they are small changes and the differential is swamped by the University of Manchester’s growth in Chinese students.

TABLE 2: Selected cities showing change in university enrollments year on year

	China – student change yoy	India – student change yoy
Birmingham	860	75
Birmingham City	50	800
Nottingham	725	50
Nottingham Trent	-150	270
Manchester	885	25
Manchester Metropolitan	50	70
Sheffield	1150	-10
Sheffield Hallam	-135	185

Source: HESA

What becomes clear is that lower ranked universities are securing a significantly greater proportion of the growth in Indian students. This supports the notion that the changing importance of the two main source markets could have a major impact on the financial strength in different parts of the sector. But the underlying drivers of the recruitment patterns are less obvious.

It is likely that lower ranked universities represent better value for money in terms of fees, accommodation and other costs of study which is likely to be particularly attractive to self-funding students. There is also a propensity for lower ranked universities to make offers at lower grades which means a less competitive route to selection and enrollment. Several are located in areas that the UK census has shown have strong communities with contacts in India but that would not explain the differences within cities that have two universities.

The differences in performance are very striking and it raises a number of questions about the longer- term strategy of universities that are not currently recruiting heavily from the Indian market. It seems possible that as numbers from China stabilise or even go into decline there will be greater competition for the growing numbers from India. It is probably best for lower-ranked universities to make the most of this moment in the sun but if they have the opportunity to develop a solid local community and optimise their contacts with alumni the impact may be long lasting.

More troubling for some universities might be their failure to recruit strongly from either of these major markets in 2019/20. There are some well-known names and reasonably ranked institutions that seem to be suffering as the big city Russell Group universities excel in recruiting students from China but who do not appear attractive to students from India. It is interesting but seems counter intuitive that the two with the greatest loss from China year on year are partnered with pathway operators with traditional strengths in the country.

TABLE 3: Universities with the largest year on year loss of students from China (2018-19 to 2019-20)

University	China – year on year change in total enrollments	India – year on year change in total enrollments
Sussex	– 340	10
East Anglia	– 260	40
Hull	– 200	5

NOTE: I’d like to commend the University of Hull for their experiment in charging postgraduates starting in 2021 the same as Home students. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

Source: HESA

As noted the University of Hull has embarked on an aggressive marketing ploy to charge postgraduate students the same fee as home students in 2021. As far as I am aware this is unique in the UK higher education system and it will be interesting to see how it works out. It’s certainly better than those universities that will continue to discriminate in favour of all European Union students who are now deemed international but are being allowed home student rates.

For UK universities there is unlikely to be any Government opposition to the growing numbers although experience shows it’s always possible for U-turns in policy. As recently as 4 March, 2021, Minister for Future Borders and Immigration Kevin Foster said, “As we rebuild from the global pandemic we want the world’s brightest talent, who aspire to a career at the highest levels of business, science, the arts and technology to see our United Kingdom as the natural place to fulfil their aspirations. The changes announced today will ensure once they have received a gold standard qualification from one of our world leading education institutions they can easily secure the status they need to continue living, working and fulfilling their dreams in the UK.”

It sounds great news for recruitment but I am reminded of a Government statement with the words, “We want high quality international students to come here. We want them to study at genuine institutions, whose primary purpose is providing a first class education. And we want the best of them – and only the best of them – to stay on and work here after their studies are complete.” This statement was made by then Home Secretary, The Rt Hon Theresa May, in 2011, shortly before the UK post-study work visa was removed. It would probably only take an economic setback and rising numbers of unemployed graduates to see post-study work for international students being viewed less favourably by a Government that is still posturing about border control.

For US universities keen to make the most of revitalized interest from international students it is worth considering how recent research from IDP might dictate their engagement and offer strategy. A survey of more than 800 prospective international students in more than 40 countries who are interested in studying in the US – with more than half of respondents based in India – found that more than three quarters (76%) have improved perceptions of the US since the 2020 presidential election, with 67% stating they are now more likely to study there. What is clear from the UK experience is that the opportunity to recruit from India is available to almost all institutions if they can get the fundamentals right.

Critically, the emerging facts from the UK suggest that value in the cost of study is likely to be as significant a driver of interest as rankings. Post study work is an important outcome but students, particularly those that are self-financing, will be equally interested in being able to minimize their outgoings during the course. Making appropriate adjustments and moving decisively to work in market with a compelling message will be vital for institutions wanting to maximise international enrollments post-pandemic.

Un-civil War for UK Universities If Welsh Break Ranks on EU Fees?

A tweet from Chris Marshall, Head of Policy and Strategy, at Swansea University on 6 January suggested that the first shots may have been fired in the battle to lure EU students to Wales when their fee status changes to ‘international’ later in 2021. The sub-text and purported THE headline is that the “Move sets Wales apart from rest of UK post-Brexit”. It implies that the Welsh Government is legislating, or planning to legislate, to mandate differential fee treatment for EU students attending Welsh universities which would probably provide legal protection from the anti-discrimination principles of the Equality Act 2010.

Just a word of caution. The link to the timeshighereducation.com source lead me to a page that read You don’t have permission to access this page.and a search of the THE web-pages does not find the article. It seems possible that someone jumped the gun, that the website has not updated or that the story, for some reason, never appeared.

If the Welsh Government does legislate in a way that gives legal cover for EU students being charged the same fee rate as Home students it may be the starting gun in a race to level the playing field in the UK. Those with long memories in UK higher education will recall the period when the post-study work rules in Scotland were more benevolent and seen as a boon for international student recruitment north of the Border. There seems little doubt that legislators in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland would come under pressure to allow the same benefit if Wales makes a break.

It would probably be a relief for Swansea University who management of their current preferential treatment of EU students seem a bit convoluted. The main fees page states, “Your Tuition Fees will be chaged (sic) at the same rate as International students” but the Undergraduate Scholarships page tells us there will be an “automatic discount to tuition fees for EU students that join us in the academic year 2021/22 and will reduce the fees to the same level as UK tuition fees”. Perhaps this is just an attempt to spare the feelings of other international students who will be paying £5,550 a year more for a course in, say, Business Law, LLB (Hons).

Another version of the preferential pricing is seen at Bangor University which has a £5,000 EU student scholarship for EU undergraduate students in 2021/22 – with the spin that £2,500 is off fees and £2,500 is off university accommodation. The difference between the International fee for a BA in Business Studies and the Home fee is £6,000 so it nearly makes up the difference. Maybe there is a hope that having a ‘scholarship’ split between fee and accommodation is a way of defending a legal challenge on discriminatory pricing?

There may well be other variations on these themes but the trend for many universities reviewed in England and Wales appears to be to proclaim on the international fees page that EU students will be subject to international fees from 2021/22. The underlying blanket sweetener, discount, scholarship or bursary for students from 27 European countries is offered discretely, some might also say discreetly, on a separate page. It all seems less than transparent and might suggest that there are deliberate attempts to keep the preferential treatment of students from Europe under the radar.

Checking the Government Position

In a written statement from Kirsty Williams, the Minister of Education for the Welsh Government, on 10 August 2020 said that EU students ‘will not be eligible for support or, in the case of higher education courses, home fee status’ after 1 August 2021. A search of the Welsh Government pages shows a new statement on the fee situation (6 January, 2020) which says ‘the Welsh Government will provide support to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals who benefit from citizens’ rights under the various withdrawal agreements.’

The European Union statement on Citizens’ Rights under the Withdrawal Agreement says that ‘The Withdrawal Agreement protects those EU citizens lawfully residing in the United Kingdom, and UK nationals lawfully residing in one of the 27 EU Member States at the end of the transition period.’ This does not, however, include EU students who are resident in the EU.

The ‘citizens’ rights’ question relating to fees was also answered by Michele Donelan in October 2020 when she indicated that “current EU principles of equal treatment will continue to apply for those covered by the citizens’ rights provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement”. It is difficult to see that the Welsh statement makes allowances for a significantly wider group than has already been accounted for in England. The devil, as always, is in the detail and the intentions of Governments are not always clear so I would be very happy to have authoritative guidance on the issue and whether the statement from the Welsh Government makes a material difference.

Legal, Moral or Ethical?

A material change in legislation would, of course, save the blushes of English universities currently planning to discriminate in favour of EU students against other international students. But it would not save the moral dilemma of advantaging students from Europe over those from Asia, Africa and the Americas. Neither would it satisfactorily respond to international students who have long held the view that they are exploited by universities to subsidize home students.

What the THE did write about on 6 January was that UK universities were ‘‘weighing options’ on EU Student Fee Discounts”. In the article Smita Jamdar, head of education at Shakespeare Martineau, suggests that “in my mind there’s a question over whether ‘EU national’ really is a nationality-based discrimination”. There is also a suggestion that transitional arrangements could be considered a proportionate response to the changing situation for EU students.

It’s all interesting stuff that will play out over the coming year but thus far the vast majority of universities have decided to charge EU students international fees for 2021/22. When a university chooses to significantly increase the price of a course from year to year there are not usually ‘transitional arrangements’ for new students. It is also difficult to argue that EU students have not had fair warning of their likely change of status given the Government’s General Election promise to complete Brexit.

It really is about time that the organizations with an interest in students – Office for Students, National Union of Students, UKCISA and others – got to grips with the situation. Clarity would be a very good thing but so would some considered responses on how differential pricing is equitable even as a transition measure. At the very least, universities might be challenged to indicate the timetable for any transition rather than allowing a systemic, divisive and discriminatory system by default.

Image by David Peterson from Pixabay

Jeopardy for UK Universities – Part 2

Responses to an earlier blog showing that, post-Brexit, a number of UK universities would continue to offer all European Union students preferential tuition fee status over international students suggested it was worth digging deeper. It’s also worth considering what the consequences might be if a group of international students or the National Union of Students decided to test whether a university’s blanket discount for EU students was discriminatory. The recruitment implications for pathway operations if some university partners provide preferential fees for EU students is another dimension for consideration.

Research on university websites suggests that universities planning to give EU students the same tuition fee as UK students in the 2021 academic year include:

Bedfordshire	Buckinghamshire
Solent	Leicester
West London	Royal Holloway
De Montfort	Portsmouth
Oxford Brookes	Nottingham Trent

In most cases the intention is clearly stated but there are more subtle versions of preferential pricing such as the University of Gloucestershire where details are buried in the 2021/22 Fee and Bursary Policy (on page 14 of 19). It notes that “The International Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from your first year’s tuition fee” while the “EU Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from each year”. So, an EU undergraduate student on a three-year degree course gets the benefit of an additional £6,000 of grant “automatically awarded at the point of offer”.

Some of the university websites are so Delphic or poorly organized that it is difficult to confirm their position one way or another so the list may not be comprehensive. At least 13 universities reviewed do not seem to be in a position to show fees for 2021/22 or say they are awaiting further information from the Government. These include some surprisingly big players:

Coventry	Northumbria
Cambridge	Liverpool
University of the Arts, London	Brunel*
Queen Mary	Loughborough
Greenwich	SOAS
Brighton	Hertfordshire
London South Bank

*A source has indicated that Brunel are offering the same rate to EU as Home students in 2021 but I am unable to verify this on the website.

The legal consequences seem ill-defined and it remains possible that last minute Government action might change the situation. Scotland has already decided that post-Brexit it could not legally continue to offer EU students the same, free tuition as Scottish students. Edinburgh University is publishing 2021/22 fees that have three rates – those for Scottish students, Home/Rest of UK, and International/EU. This would suggest that the university sees little room for manoeuvre in maintaining even the Home/Rest of UK for European Union students.

Legal analysis is very thin on the ground with the Time Higher Education article by Elizabeth Jones of Farrer and Co being an exception and the piece does not run to exploring remedies that might arise if the differential fees are illegal. The university would, presumably, be obliged to honour its contract with the EU students to charge them at home rates so could not change that arrangement. If that is the case then it is possible they might be required to reduce fees for all other international students to the same level.

As an example, the difference for De Montfort would be around £5,000 a year per student. HESA data for 2018/19 indicates that the University had 1,020 EU and 2,025 other first degree, full time international students so, if one took a third of the latter number that could suggest around 675 first year international undergraduate students and, therefore, a potential cost of £3.375m a year in lost fees if they had to be charged at the lower rate. There are many ‘ifs’ involved in the calculation and I am happy to make any corrections needed if an authoritative source is able to say how much is at stake.

There’s also the interesting matter of what international students who are attending a course with a commercial pathway provider have been advised about their fees. Just as an example, De Montfort is aligned with Oxford International Education Group (OIEG) which offers an integrated degree – the student can either study an International Year Zero (IYZ) and then go on to do three years with the university or an International First Year (IFY) and go on to do two years with the university.

The point is that the OIEG website shows the “International or Tier 4 Visa students” fee for IYZ at £14,995 for 2020/21 and 2021/22 and for the IFY at £14,995 in 2020/21 rising to £15,995 in 2021/22. EU students on the same courses are being charged £9,250 in 2020/21 and the 2021/22 fees are not yet announced. Commercial providers in a similar situation may soon have to choose whether to continue to offer wholescale preferential rates on the basis of nationality.

Some pathway operations have grown large numbers of EU students into their operation with the lure of being charged the same as Home students when they go on to the university to complete their degree an important sales points. For example, the 2018 QAA Report on the Navitas pathway operation with Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) noted, “The significant growth in student numbers at the Cambridge College, based on recruitment of home and EU students, is a trend that the Provider is looking at in relation to other colleges.” Individual course pages suggest that ARU is currently planning that in 2021/22 EU students will be considered international but that could be tested if other universities and their partners appear to be successful in their recruitment efforts with preferential fees.

It would be good to see the UK Government confirm its position so that UKCISA and universities have to provide certainty to students about the fees they will pay. This is also a moment where the NUS could step up to ensure that international students are being treated equitably. The current situation was wholly foreseeable and organizations that are meant to have student interests at heart are only noticeable by their absence.

If universities offering lower EU fees are successful in their recruitment efforts it does not take a great leap of imagination to see how this could become widespread across the sector. It would mean universities choosing (rather than being obliged by Government) to embed preferential treatment based solely on nationality into their recruitment processes. That seems an unfortunate consequence which should be challenged at the earliest opportunity.

PIGS TO PETTICOATS TO PATHWAY PROBLEMS

INTO’s London-based joint venture with Newcastle University is the second of the pathway provider’s high profile university partnerships to come to grief at the Middlesex Street building near Liverpool Street station. The location was also the home of INTO’s venture with the ill-fated London Academy of Diplomacy, led by Joseph Mifsud who became infamous for his involvement in Robert Mueller’s enquiry into President Trump. It’s reasonable to say that the site has seen more than its fair share of false starts, big ambitions and strange bedfellows – there’s even a Princess at one point.

The timeline of occupants, the financial fortunes of the joint ventures and the variety of pre-university, undergraduate and master’s courses offered suggests that making a success of a London venture is tricky. There are many potential downsides to higher education investment in one of the most expensive cities in the world. When ambience fall short of a true campus experience, facilities are limited and university faculty are more committed to their home towns it can be particularly hard going.

A run through the various occupants of Middlesex shows that even well ranked partners with global reputations might find it too difficult or too expensive to make things work. The dates of operation are taken from public documents but may reflect a difference between an entity being incorporated and its first intake. Any authoritative updates are welcome.

INTO University of East Anglia, London (2009-2014)

INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP was established as a joint venture in 2009 to provide academic and language courses, primarily to international students, at a purpose built study centre in London. The intention was to offer pre-university courses along with “graduate and post-graduate courses taught by UEA academics”. But UEA’s 2011/12 Financial Statement suggested that things were not going to plan and noted, “Trading to date is slightly down on the original plan, reflecting a slower build up in student numbers than originally anticipated.”

The University’s 2012/13 Annual Report comments, “In light of the current trading performance of INTO London, and the fact that accumulated losses will not be recouped for some time, the University made a capital investment of £3,000,000 in the joint venture in August 2013.” An operating loss of £1.2m in 2011/12 had followed one of £2.5m in 2010/11 for the joint venture. By early 2014 UEA had decided to retire at the end of July 2014 to focus on delivering teaching and research, “at our superb Norwich campus,”.

INTO City, University of London (2010-Current)

INTO City began trading in 2010 and focuses on pre-university courses. By 2015 the joint venture had net current liabilities of £5.8m and its annual report noted “material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.” Discussions were ongoing to reduce the charges from each partner, clarify governance and recapitalize the venture.

The outcomes suggest a rebalancing of risk and reward reflected in City’s 2018/19 Financial Statements which note that, “Prior to 1 September 2017, a 50 per cent share of the net assets and liabilities was included in City’s balance sheet and 50 per cent of its net income was reported in the consolidated income and expenditure account. Since 1 September 2017, City’s share of net income has been reduced to 15 percent.” Always worth remembering that universities are primarily interested in pathway providers because of the income they receive from students who progress to full degree courses. This may be a reason that City gives equal prominence on its webpages to the pathway arrangement with Kaplan International College

London Academy of Diplomacy (2010-2016)

In an impassioned blog in 2013, UEA visiting lecturer Barry Tomalin advocated, “Don’t Let Diplomacy Fail”, to students at INTO’s London Academy of Diplomacy (known affectionately as “LAD”). Under Professor Nabil Ayad, LAD had been with the University of Westminster, but from 2010 its degrees were validated by UEA and it operated out of Middlesex Street. Another INTO partner, the University of Stirling, took over validating the Academy’s awards in 2014 by which time Professor Joseph Mifsud was Director of LAD.

Brig Newspaper does a decent job of explaining the story of the “academic who attempted to connect the Trump campaign with Vladimir Putin” and INTO’s role with the Academy. It highlights that LAD was closed in 2016 “citing financial difficulties” and an article in the Diplomat suggest that the Academy had 150 students in 2014. Sufficient to say that the University of Stirling’s London-based activities arising from its joint-venture with INTO, whether with LAD or the short-lived Master’s program at a different site in the capital, no longer exist.

INTO Newcastle University London (2015-2021)

The Newcastle University London joint venture had an inaugural intake in 2015 and offered both pathway and degree courses. Opened by HRH Princess Eugenie, a Newcastle graduate, in October 2015, it held the university’s aspirations that, ”..in collaboration with INTO, our London campus is expected to grow to 1,200 students.” By 2018/19 the venture had grown to 504 enrollments but its operating losses had reached £2.4m.

Council minutes from the University indicate that discussions and negotiations about the future of the joint venture had been ongoing during most of 2019. By April 2020 the University’s Council noted “that there was a compelling case to suspend undergraduate recruitment in 2020 on the grounds of insufficient applications, and judged that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic would make future viability even less likely.” It seemed a short step from there to the recent announcement that the joint venture would close next year.

INTO London World Education Center (“WEC”) (2017-Current)

WEC is a wholly owned operation of INTO’s which began operations around 2012/13 and offers pre-university courses for international students. The student outcomes are accepted for consideration for entry by over 100 UK universities. The accounts for 2015/16 noted an expected move to Middlesex Street which would “represent a more desirable study location” than its previous home on Mile End Road but this appears to have been delayed until 2017/18.

Year one at the new location saw a rise from 123 to 157 students but 2018/19 saw a decline back to 126. WEC’s operating loss grew from £1.9m to £2.4m year-on-year across the two periods. WEC’s debt to other INTO group undertakings also appears to have risen to £8.9m in 2019 from £5.6m in 2015.

London – A Golden Opportunity or a Battle for Survival?

The chequered history of the Middlesex Street pathway operation matches the shifting sands of the location. The Street was known as Hogge Lane in the Middle Ages because pigs were fattened up in the surrounding fields to feed Londoners. Ryther’s famous map of 1608 records a name change, with Hogge Lane becoming Peticote Lane (with the spelling later being standardised to ”Petticoat”) as the area had become known for merchants’ selling second-hand clothes. Petticoat Lane Market became one of the most famous in London, but around 1830 prudish authorities thought it unseemly to have a thoroughfare named after an item of women’s underwear and it was renamed Middlesex Street.

Shakespeare is quoted as saying, “I hope to see London ere I die” and many universities and pathway operators have set their sights on the UK capital in the belief it is an irresistible magnet to international students. And Benjamin Disraeli, twice British prime minister in the 1800s, said “London is a modern Babylon” which suggests its history as an appropriate location for language-oriented pathways. It is certainly possible to see pathway successes in London, with an example being the Kaplan International Centre which continues to add to an illustrious list of partner institutions.

But with the fallout from Brexit, the potential resurgence of a more friendly US international student experience, and all the uncertainties of a post-pandemic world the future for London-based education is far from clear. Expensive buildings and accommodation, limited commitment from faculty to travel to London and low progression rates from a London pathway course to a distant campus are all obstacles to be overcome. It could be that legendary punk group The Ruts summed up the future for investors best when they sang, “Babylon’s burning with anxiety”.

NOTES

1. Information relating to joint venture finances is taken from the filings at Companies House (INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP (now INTO London Mdx Street LLP, INTO City LLP, Newcastle University INTO London LLP, and INTO London World Education Centre Limited.

2. Commentary on the ventures at Middlesex Street has been taken from official records but it is a complex history. Any corrections, insights or updates from sources that can be validated are welcome. They will be noted and credited on this blog.

Image by TeeFarm from Pixabay

This Time It’s Different Because…

While hoping for the best it is increasingly difficult to believe that the next two years won’t be very tough. The economic news changes by the day and there is still little certainty about the process for removing the various lockdown measures around the world. It is even tempting to not to write until the dust has settled.

A number of commentators have suggested that higher education is counter-cyclical in terms of student growth and refer to the experience of the ‘great recession’ of 2008. But I recently quoted Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway who said of the current situation, “This thing is different”, and I doubt that previous global shocks a good guide to what might happen this time around. For home and international student enrollments this may even be a fundamental turning point.

This is not a counsel of despair. There are signs that many students are still keeping their options open before deciding whether to travel across country or overseas for study. But the backdrop to their decision making and the factors constraining countries, let alone universities, are far more complex than 2008.

….it really is Global

The 2008 recession for the G20-zone (85% of all gross world product (GWP) is often called a global recession which lasted from mid‑2008 until 2009. But while 2009 saw real GDP rates fall in virtually all of Europe, along with Canada and the US, the reality was that China, India, South America and almost all of Africa had GDP growth. The coming recession may be V, W, L or swoosh shaped, but it seems likely that every country in the world will have a dip in GDP this year.

China was never in recession throughout the period of what was called the ‘great recession’ but the first quarter of 2020 saw the Chinese economy shrink for the first time since 1976.

…Established Student Sources May Not Drive Growth

China’s GDP growth was at 14.7% in 2007 and remained above 9% until 2012. Its 20-24 year age group grew by 13 million between 2007 and 2011. These factors fueled international student growth through the ‘great recession’.

According to HESA data, between 2007/08 and 2011/12 the number of Chinese students in UK universities grew by over 33,000 to 78,715. The next largest growth was from India which grew just under 14,000 from 25,905 to 39,090 by 2010/11 before falling back to 29,900 as Government visa policies hardened.

In the US, Open Doors data indicates that 2007/08 was the first year since 2001/02 that international student enrollments had got above 560,000. By 2011/12 the number of enrollments had increased by a further 120,000. China contributed over 100,00 of that increase.

China’s university age population is stable but at lower levels than a decade ago and financial pressure on the middle class was already evident before the coronavirus. Add in the safety concerns and it is little wonder that the British Council found that Chinese students had a high propensity to reconsider plans for the coming year.

…Oil Glut and Increased Production Capacity

In the previous recession oil prices dipped rapidly but recovered within two years. This time round some benchmark oil prices have gone negative early in the pandemic and the global oil glut is considered by some to be similar to the 1980s when prices stayed low for several years. The impact is exemplified by Saudi Arabia’s reduction of $27bn in net foreign assets in just the month of March. Development of technology and the re-emergence of the US as a dominant producer seem certain to make it difficult to constrain production in a way that forces prices up.

It seems unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, any government will be able or willing to fund substantial scholarship schemes driven by oil wealth.

…Quality, Value and Availability of Online Degrees

In 2009 it is estimated that there were 5.5m students worldwide taking at least one course online, but by 2017 it was estimated to be over 6m in the US alone. By 2019, 98% of public universities and colleges in the US offered some form of online program and the University of Pennsylvania had become the first Ivy-league institution to offer a bachelors’ degree totally online.

In the ‘great recession’ the for-profit universities were at the forefront of online education. This time around there is, literally, a world of choice and great brand names available to students. Students wanting to get a degree do not have to incur the health risk, the uncertainty or the extra cost of an on-campus experience.

Online has provided a short-term response to the coronavirus but students may find it a cheaper and more convenient option for future study.

…Cost of Higher Education to Students

Analysis suggests that going to college in the US in 2018/19 was 25.3% (private) and 29.8% (public) more costly than in 2008/09 on a like-for-like dollar basis. Forbes has estimated that between 1989 and 2016 the cost of going to college grew eight times faster than average annual wages.

In England the introduction of £9,000 a year student fees didn’t occur until 2012. By 2019 average student debt on entry to repayment was £35,950 compared to £11,720 in 2009. Rising levels of debt have not, thus far, deterred students in England from going to university but it’s on their minds.

As importantly, universities have been obliged to spend significant amounts on attracting students from less well represented backgrounds. The government debt burden has also been significantly increased as the real cost of student loans was added in late 2019. Faced with the cost of combatting coronavirus and a global recession students, universities and the Government may be less willing to absorb these costs.

The cost of going into higher education has become increasingly difficult for any of the stakeholders to absorb – even before the pandemic.

….Attitudes Towards the Value of Higher Education Degree Have Hardened

UK and the US students have never paid more for their degree and there is some evidence that disenchantment has set in. In 2013, Gallup found that 70% of U.S. adults considered a college education to be “very important,” 23% felt it was “fairly important” and 6% said it was “not too important.” In 2019, those figures had shifted to 51%, 36% and 13%, respectively with even bigger negative shifts seen in the 18-29 age group.

Longitudinal evidence about student sentiment is harder to come by in the UK but this year’s graduating students will be the first under the higher English fee level to come into a world where unemployment is rising. UK unemployment following the ‘great recession’ peaked at just over 8% in 2011. It is likely that the job market will be tough for at least a couple of years.

The value of a degree has always been partly about having choices and career options. The rising cost of education and the gloomiest jobs market for a decade may make potential students rethink their decisions. The UK Government may be forced to reconsider whether Post Study Work visas are creating too much competition for scarce jobs.

…and New Options May Be More Attractive

A recession is likely to focus this argument on the ways a workforce is able to help a country emerge from recession. It is claimed by Upwork that the 20 fastest growing skills on their Skills Index do not require a degree. It notes that in 2018 Glassdoor said, “Increasingly, there are many companies offering well-paying jobs to those with nontraditional education or a high-school diploma.”

Non-traditional education options focused on work skills have grown rapidly and the lockdown may be driving more people in that direction. Udemy has already seen a surge of interest in its online courses, particularly in AI and machine learning. A trend towards skills-oriented learning, whether online or in short-courses, leading to a qualification may become better established.

The safety of university degrees offering shelter from the jobs market for three or four years come at a high cost. It seems possible that the new options available and the scramble to find work or avoid excessive HE costs will drive people towards focused solutions.

This is not an exhaustive list but flags some things which seem materially different this time round. The extent to which institutions are able to adapt and pivot to meet the needs of students and society may determine their ability to survive. There will always be opportunities for the flexible, the creative and those who can offer value for money and the promise of a better future.

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

PSW – The Morning After

There’s plenty of jubilation over the re-introduction of two-year Post-Study Work visas and congratulations are due to those who lobbied for it. But it’s worth remembering that Government’s rarely give something without wanting something in return and that every gift horse should be given careful scrutiny. In that context there are a few things to look out for over the coming weeks, months and years.

Drift, Detail and Design

A ‘popular’ announcement from a Government under pressure is often rushed out with detail and other policy intent still needing to be tidied up. The Home Secretary’s announcement that the new Graduate Route ‘will mean talented international students, whether in science and maths or technology and engineering, can study in the UK…’ was curious in the context of a scheme allowing all graduates to stay. It’s mirrored on the Home Office website and may provide cover for a later tightening of the rules to specific subjects.

A Step Forward But…

Some details of PSW are still to be announced but it seems slightly short of the Australian (two to four years) and Canadian (up to three years) schemes. It is not yet clear if families can join the PSW graduate as in Australia and it seems doubtful that there will be any room for promoting it as a route to permanent residence as Canadian institutions do. And there is always the potential for both those countries to step up their offer to become even more competitive.

Economic Conditions Can Change Policy

PSW was last introduced in the UK in 2002 when unemployment was 5%. It’s discontinuation in 2012 followed a rapid rise in unemployment to 8% between 2009 and 2011. Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons, ‘Frankly, there are lots of people in our country desperate for jobs. We don’t need the brightest and best of students to come here and then do menial jobs.’

The economic direction of travel for the UK post-Brexit is uncertain but universities have been drawn very directly into discussions about employability and the value of a degree. It’s easy to allow PSW in an era of historically low unemployment, currently around 4%, but if recession hits and unemployment climbs it is equally simple to remove it. Trends in numbers and careers of home graduates may factor in that equation.

Table 1 – UK Unemployment 2000-2013

Grounds for Home Student Fee Reduction

The HE sector made an enormous song and dance about the contribution of international student fees but may find being granted it has unintended consequences. With increasing international students providing a major economic stimulus to universities there is fertile ground for populist and electioneering proposals to cut fees for home students and increase investment in school and FE. It’s probably helpful that international students also prop up the economics of many STEM courses and postgraduate study.

Limiting HE Investment to Support Other Priorities

Universities may hope the Augar Review has been buried but newspaper headlines about ‘low value’ courses, universities manipulating applications, grade inflation and VC pay are unlikely to have been totally forgotten. More importantly, more money from international students gives grounds to support more popular or political priorities. It was interesting to see Chancellor Sajid ‘I went to my local FE College’ Javid, Spending Round announcement include an increase for further education funding in the 2019 spending round and increasing ‘school spending by £7.1 billion by 2022-23, compared to this year.’

International Fees For EU Students

One of the arguments against introducing international fees for EU students post-Brexit has been that it will cause a significant decline in their numbers. A surge in traditional international fee-paying students attracted by PSW makes up those numbers and would allow EU students to work as PSW international students without a more complex arrangement with Europe. Making EU students ineligible for UK student loans would also eliminate headlines like ‘Thousands of EU students fail to repay loans.’

Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width

It is arguable that strong brands perceived as high quality or with potent strategies for recruitment have not been particularly troubled by the lack of post study work visas. Eight Russell Group universities each increased their first-year international student intakes by over 27% over the two years from 2015/16 to 2017/18. Even beyond that Group there are clear winners who achieved significant growth including De Montfort (+78%) and the University of East London (+90.6%).

For some universities these were grim years with five institutions each seeing their intake decline by over 300 students. PSW is likely to see such institutions making up for lost time and revenue by driving international numbers up but the quality of the intake may suffer. PSW as the driver for attracting less able international students to cash-strapped universities is not a particularly lofty ideal.

Competition for Places and Jobs

The potential for significant upturns in volumes of international students comes just as the upswing occurs in home student demographics with HEPI suggesting the need for up to 300,000 additional university places by 2030. This sets the scene for potential conflict between home students and international students – particularly if home fees go down and institutions are looking towards the economics. The OECD’s Education at A Glance 2019 noted, ‘there is a risk of squeezing out qualified national students from domestic tertiary educational institutions that differentiate tuition fees by student origin, as they may tend to give preference to international students who generate higher revenues through higher tuition fees”.

It’s suggested that in 2019 around 1,000 places were reserved for international students in Clearing and the economics may push institutions to favouring international students over home students just as home demand steps up. It is only a short step to stories about debt-laden home graduates being unemployed because universities are enticing increasing amounts of international competition for early career jobs. At that point the freedom of PSW may find itself subject to increasing scrutiny and Government intervention.

Conclusion

A benevolent PSW policy is to be welcomed where it builds on the reputation of the sector for quality and is part of a strategic approach to supporting higher education’s potential as a major contributor to global influence as well as the UK’s economic and cultural development. It is also possible that the recent announcement was carefully planned and is the start of a period of unprecedented benevolence towards higher education in the UK. But history and context suggest that things are rarely so simple.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

SEVIS With A Smile? Or ‘A Delusion, A Mockery And A Snare’?

Data-driven predictions of future international student enrollments can be very useful for international recruiters, university budgeting and potential investors in higher education. Recent commentary using Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) data shows how visa data can be characterized in a way that suggests the challenges faced by US higher education are overstated. But clarity around what this data source includes and where it might exaggerate or diminish trends is vital to avoid misdirection and poor decision making.

The increasingly user-friendly ‘SEVIS By the Numbers’ web-site provides good access to visa data complete with interactive maps and is a popular source. It claims it ‘illustrates trends and information on international students studying in the United States’ but it does not disaggregate between those enrolled at universities and those on student visas taking the Optional Practical Training (OPT) extension which allows for post-study work. Confusing or conflating the two is unhelpful in understanding the implications for the state of US higher education.

Executive action in 2016 increased the maximum length of employment under OPT for foreign students with STEM degrees to 36 months, which, along with a booming US economy, resulted in a material increase in the number of STEM graduates staying on to work in the US. While these students hold F-1 visas (and are reported in the SEVIS numbers), they are not tuition-paying students enrolled in a US university.

To give a sense of materiality of the OPT numbers, the Institute of International Education (IIE) Open Doors Report reports shows that the proportion of OPT students rose to 18.6% of ‘total international students’ in 2017/18 from 12.4% in 2014/15. When the IIE announced that the ‘number of international students’ increased to reach a new high of 1,094,000 in 2017/18, the growth in OPT numbers masked the reality that students enrolled in full-time study in US universities actually declined year-on-year and were lower than 2015/16.

Source: Institute of International Education, 2018, https://www.iie.org/opendoors

A better guide to the health and future of international student recruitment may be provided by IIE’s data which shows that both undergraduate and postgraduate new enrollments have fallen for two years in a row, and non-degree enrollments for three. Critically, between 2015/16 and 2017/18 the number of undergraduates and graduates enrolled fell by over 17,000 while the number of non-degree students fell by less than 5,000. While percentage falls in non-degree students can look high, the number of students is relatively low compared to the main body of academic students.

Master’s Level Enrollments and Students From India

Thinking of SEVIS data as a proxy for enrollments is particularly distorting at Master’s level and for understanding trends for students from India. SEVIS suggests that the number of Master’s ‘students’ grew by 27.7% between 2014 and 2017 while IIE data indicates that numbers actually enrolled in universities grew by only 8.4%. The difference is driven by the 69.1% increase in OPT numbers (83,175) shown in IIE data over the four years.

Source:
Institute of International Education, 2018, https://www.iie.org/opendoors and SEVIS data from INTO Corporate Blog

Note: The SEVIS data and the IIE Enrollment data is not synchronous.

The Pew Research Centre has reported that students from India are significantly more likely to utilise the OPT opportunity than other international students. IIE’s breakdown indicates that between 2016/17 and 2017/18 the number of students from India enrolled on Graduate programmes declined by nearly 10,000 while the numbers doing OPT increased by over 18,000. The increase in numbers doing OPT appears to be slowing which is likely to reflect emerging options around the world and the declining competitiveness of the US in retaining international talent.

At undergraduate level, which is unaffected by OPT, IIE and SEVIS both show a small growth in students from India year-on-year to 2017/18 but this should be seen in the context of growth in Canada which had 123,000 students from India in 2017 – 63% more than the year before. This was largely driven by an increase of 67% (86,900) going into colleges, presumably as a result of the opportunities for progression to university, work and citizenship. It will be interesting to see how far growth in Indian undergraduates in the US goes when these routes seem more straightforward and available in Canada.

The 1st Baron Denman coined the phrase ‘a delusion, a mockery and a snare’ in a legal context in the 1840s, and imprecise use or understanding of data has a similar potential to lure, deceive and trap the unwary. No source of information is without flaws and weaknesses but it is also foolhardy to take one source, view or instance as giving definitive guidance. In that respect there is plenty of evidence that competitors are challenging the US, that global student mobility is changing, that demographics are shifting and that technology is disrupting the established order.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Open Doors and Outliers – Looking For Rubies in a Mountain of Rocks

Open Doors data, published by the Institute of International Education (IIE) on 13 November, confirms the much-anticipated decline in international student enrollments in the US. But delving into the detail demonstrates that there are also outliers with significant growth in international students year on year. It is always interesting to dig down to see who is bucking the trend – but more importantly how they are doing it.

At the headline level there is unmitigated gloom with the total number of enrolled international students in 2017/18 down by 11,797 (1.3%) on the prior year. There are also signs of a fractured pipeline for Fall 2018 with non-degree student starters down 9.7% year on year (4,868 students) and down 23.8% (14,135 students) from the 2014/15 peak. Since a 2015/16 high-point undergraduate and postgraduate new-enrollments are down by 9% (10,723) and 6.8% (8,556) respectively.

Table 1 – New International Student Enrollment in the US 2007-08 to 2016-17
Source: Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Against that background the state of Kentucky was eye-catching for two reasons. It posted a 26.9% increase in international students – an exceptional performance for a state that was, in 2016/17, 31st in overall popularity in terms of volume of students enrolled. Within the state Campbellsville University was the only one of the top five (by volume enrollments) to grow and became the leading recruiter with a year on year increase of nearly 2800 students.

Table 2 – Year on Year Change in Foreign Students in Kentucky (Source: Open Doors Fact Sheets 2017 and 2018)
IPEDS data shows that across all domestic and international, full and part-time enrollments Campbellsville grew by 96% year on year to Fall 2017. A time series shows that growth at the institution accelerated very significantly in the past year. Graduate part-time has been the primary engine of growth with graduate full-time and undergraduate part-time also contributing.

Table 3 – Campbellsville University Total Graduate and Undergraduate Enrollments 2014-2017
NB: 2017 data is listed as Provisional Release data by IPEDS

International student enrollments (as per non-resident aliens in IPEDS reporting) have been the driving force for the significant growth over the past year. Full-time international graduates grew by more than 600 year on year and part-time international graduates by over 1700.

Table 4 – Campbellsville Full and Part Time Graduate Enrollments
The graduate growth appears to be almost entirely driven by students from India. In 2016 Open Doors reported the proportion of students from China and India in Kentucky as being equal at 18.9% of the total. By 2017 students from India leapt to 43.1% of the total as China fell to 13.1%.

This is supported by the Quartz news website which published, in May 2018, an article reviewing the courses offered by Campbellsville and another Kentucky-based institution, the University of the Cumberlands . The article quotes Shanon Garrison, the vice president for enrollment services at the University of Campbellsville, as saying that “99% of the students in the course are native to India but live in and work for companies based in the US.” Most students are enrolled in the Masters of Science in Information Technology and Management (MSITM). which, according to Quartz, is ‘designed to allow international students to work full-time jobs while enrolled.’.

The report suggests that students are required to attend the campus for three days of face-to-face classes at the beginning of each term and that the degree costs around $17,000. Flexibility, affordability and the opportunity to work appear to be key factors in the popularity of the course. It is a powerful combination which appears to have turbo-charged growth at Campbellsville.

International recruitment has always been a space where intelligent minds consider ways to develop creative programming that works productively within the legal, visa and competitive environment. Large institutions can often be relatively slow in adapting to new circumstances or may rely on their reputations to see them through the bad times. Innovation and boldness are usually the hallmarks of smaller, more nimble institutions and their successes are often worth considering.

The purpose of looking more closely at the University of Campbellsville is to illustrate possibilities and is not intended to advocate for or against the model. The Quartz article outlines some of the potential challenges and it is not unusual for innovation to appear in specific niches that are inaccessible or out of scope for other institutions. But at a difficult time for US international student recruitment it’s interesting to see opportunities that are still being discovered and exploited.

FRESH HOPE OR ZOMBIE DAWN AS CLEARING FOG LIFTS?

Day 28 sounds like a bid for the latest in the zombie movie franchise but its the UCAS yearly data-release marking four weeks from A-level results day. For some UK universities the former might feel appropriate because the clearing season is nearly over and visa deadlines are coming. It’s not long before all that is left is the counting of enrolments.

This year Day 28 was 13 September with the data published a week later. These numbers give the best indication of how far the UK has come in enrolling new undergraduates for the 2018/19 academic year. It’s a mixed bag.

The good news that the number of ‘placed’ international students (non-EU) is up 4% to 38,330 – that’s 1,500 more than last year. It’s a solid gain although slightly disappointing after double-digit applicant growth in the early part of the cycle. It looks anaemic against the growth in Canada and Australia but is likely to be better than the US.

At a subject level the biggest winners are Business and Administrative Studies (+350), Computer Sciences (+310) and Biological Sciences (+240). However, the number of Engineering students is down by 230 and at its lowest level since 2012. The five-year growth in Technologies has also been reversed with a loss of 130 students taking it to its lowest ever total.

With 6,040 students international students still holding offers the eventual enrolment outcome remains uncertain. In 2015 the number holding offers on Day 28 was 6,380 but in the past two years had fallen to 1,760 (2016) and 1,610 (2017). It is difficult to understand what is driving this fluctuation and there may still be time for a late windfall. But the majority may just be phantoms preying on the minds of hard-pressed recruitment teams.

More good news is that EU-students ‘placed’ are also up by 2% to 30,350. This is still slightly below the number for 2016 but is some cause for encouragement. A number of universities, including De Montfort who opened an office in Portugal earlier in the year, are enhancing their physical presence in Europe. It will be interesting to see how these developments plays out with Brexit looming.

The bad news is that the total number of placed students after 28 days – counting all domiciles – is down by 10,000. At a standard UK home student fee rate that’s £277m of fee revenue over a three-year degree. Universities know that the home-student demographic dip will continue for a few years, which is one reason those that can have been building their student base. It seems to be one factor behind the growth in unconditional offers from well-ranked universities.

Table 1 – Total of All Placed Undergraduate Students 28 days After A-Level Results
Of course, undergraduate enrolments are not the only source of student income for universities and postgraduates make up the bulk of international enrolments. But it is also difficult to see why the postgraduate enrolment picture would be much of an improvement on that for undergraduates. And an enrolled undergraduate gives a near guarantee of three years income compared to the yearly challenge of recruiting more one year taught Masters students.

Against this background it was interesting to read Being set up to fail? The battle to save the UK’s Universities from speculative finance. The article, from May 2018, notes that ‘some £3bn has been borrowed by UK universities since 2016, over half of this in the form of private placements.’ Some of that borrowing may be based on predictions of student enrolments that look increasingly unsustainable.

This echoes WonkHE’s November 2016 report, Getting worse: HEFCE’s bleak prognosis for university finances. One recruitment related line from HEFCE was “Our financial modelling shows that removal of projected growth in overseas fee income over the next three years (2016-17 to 2018-19) would all but wipe out sector surpluses by 2018-19, with projected surpluses falling from £1,081 million (3.4 per cent of total income) to £56 million (just 0.2 per cent of total income).”

It is to be hoped that the early warning signs from HEFCE were heeded and that the long-term financial health of individual universities has been considered more carefully over ensuing years. My blog Getting To Grips With Pathways – A Thorny Subject? showed the decline in some university incomes that has already become evident as international enrolments fall. The UK demographics will not improve for several years and the battle for international students will not get any easier.

GLOBAL LEAGUE TABLES OFFER MIXED NEWS FOR THE US AND PATHWAY PROVIDERS

Credible and well publicised global comparative university rankings are one factor changing the face of international recruitment. Students and their advisers can compare and contrast between Beijing, Berlin, Boston and Birmingham at the touch of a button. The rapid growth of online courses from universities around the world has also helped to popularise the notion of ‘shopping’ for courses through the internet.

It is clear that league tables matter and that universities see them as an important part of student recruitment. Some less welcome consequences include misleading claims and recent incidents suggest that data submitted is not always accurate. Perhaps these incidents reflect the recognition that league tables can help build reputations that support both country and institutional desirability.

In that respect evidence suggests the US is losing its way as a global rankings leader with strength in depth. For pathway providers it’s a double-whammy when the quality of their US partnerships, as defined by global comparisons, looks to be lagging behind their partners in other parts of the world. At a difficult moment for US recruitment of international students it may be another indicator of harder times ahead.

US DECLINE IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
The US has traditionally been dominant at the top of global rankings and remains powerful. But The Economist (May 19th 2018) highlighted how its broader grip on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) table has slipped over time. Chinese and Australian universities have seen the most significant growth in the table over that period.

Table 1 - Representation of Countries in ARWU TOP 500 - 2003 to 2017

The Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings also noted that in 2018 ‘two-fifths of the US institutions in the top 200 (29 out of 62) have dropped places.’ In contrast, two Chinese universities had risen into the top 30 for the first time. This shift in global power reflects the growing power of China as a first choice for international students.

US PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS BELOW TOP LEVEL
While many US universities are slipping in global rankings, pathway providers also seem to be struggling to secure partnerships with the very best universities in the country. Since April 2016 none of the partnerships announced by Study Group, Navitas, INTO or Shorelight has been in the top 200 in the QS Ranking or THE World rankings. Only two make it into the US News and World Report (USNWR) Global top 200.

Table 2 – Comparative Ranking of New US Pathway Partnerships Announced Since April 2016*National rank unless noted

Looking over the total portfolio of pathway partners of the ‘big 4’ providers in the US shows that more than half are not globally ranked by the QS, THE or, even in the US News and World Report Global Top 1000.

Table 3 – Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the US

UK PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS LOOK STRONGER IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
Three of these providers are active in the UK where their portfolios look significantly stronger in terms of global rankings. With the addition of the fourth big player in the UK – Kaplan – the overall number of partners is similar. At an aggregate level the worst performance is in the USNWR ranking but even by that measure less than a third of partners are unranked.

The UK is a more mature market for pathways but the recent emphasis of the major players seems to be on enhancing quality. Kaplan partnered with the University of Nottingham in July 2016 and Study Group announced a deal with Durham University in February 2017. Kaplan and Navitas have established new-style arrangements, including investment in infrastructure, with long-term partners Liverpool and Swansea respectively. INTO’s last UK deal was with the University of Stirling in April 2014.

Table 4 - Comparative Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the UK

A GLOBAL LEAGUE TABLE FOR THE ERA OF THE CLICK
Some pathway groups also have strong representation in Australia (and to a lesser extent in Canada). A composite league tables to reflect this and show the ‘top 11’ pathway partner universities, according to three major global league tables, shows considerable consistency. Six universities (shaded) are in all the tables and five are in two. It is, however, worth noting that all but one have slipped lower in their placing between THE 2018 and THE 2019.

Table 5 - Top Pathway Partner Universities In Selected Global League Tables

NB: The University referred to in the table as Alabama is the University of Alabama – Birmingham.

CONCLUSION
Most people who work in the sector have seen the growth of league tables as an imposition with occasionally perverse consequences for investment and resource allocation in the institution. It is entirely possible to argue that that the rankings are arbitrary and spurious with no particular relevant to student outcomes. But they are increasingly offering new layers of insight to capture attention – the QS Graduate Employability Rankings is an example.

Students, parents, agents and employers look at league tables and most student recruitment marketing focuses on favourable rankings while ignoring less flattering indicators. They are far from the only factor involved in decision making but they set a tone that influences potential students and staff. It is rare to find an institutional leader who is not keenly aware of their relative performance.

In terms of international recruitment league tables are part of an institution’s ‘sales kit’ and the growth of global comparisons exposes their relative strengths and weaknesses. It is noticeable that as international student growth has stalled in the UK over the past five years the bigger and better ranked university ‘brands’ have taken a larger share of those coming to the country. It seems inevitable that this will be the story for the future and that universities without ranking ‘power’ will need to work harder to avoid being marginalised.

NOTE:

The exact nature of pathway provider and university partnerships is not always clear but extensive efforts have been made to focus on pathway partnerships where students are taught on-campus. The author is happy to hear from any authoritative source who has information that might improve the accuracy of the article. Any corrections will be noted below.

Correction and Update – 1 October 2018
The tables and commentary have been updated to reflect the publication of the THE Global Rankings 2019 during week commencing 24 September 2018 (comparative positions for individual universities are shown). Broadly speaking the new table showed declining rankings for both US and UK universities In addition, the tables have been corrected to show the rankings for Shorelight partner the University of Mississippi (Table 2) and INTO partner the University of Exeter (Table 5).